Search form

You are here

Picking up the heel

My martial arts background primarily includes a system of karate derived from Wado-ryu, Traditional Wing Chun, and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. Although these styles differ in many ways, one thing they all have in common is that they encourage students to keep both of their feet flat on the ground at all times (save for kicking). In my limited time spent training in MMA and Krav Maga, I was instructed to lift the heel of my back foot off the ground in order to deliver certain strikes. I have also observed that in videos posted on this forum by Iain and other's, many karateka also lift up their back heels for certain strikes.

What are the benefits of lifting the back heel? In my experience, we were instructed to keep our feet relatively flat as a way of staying rooted. Do the benefits of lifting the heel off the ground outweigh any potential detriments? Are their detriments? Do you believe that their is a correct attitude regarding the role of the back heel?

Lifting the heel normally suggests an athletic movement forward or sideways so may help in power development, likewise having the heel down is tsirnger structure as the pressure of a load is taken by the entire leg when the heel is down rther that the calf muscle and ankle tendons when it is up.

I think the benefits are situational and both should be trained - use experienital lenring to find your own way, and not naively put all your eggs in one basket!

i find having the heel rooted to the ground strikes are more powerful, this does not mean that one becomes slow or ridged or the lifting of the heal does not have its benifits.

For me when lifting the heal one can over reach and may sometimes lean forward, by keeping the heal rooted one tends to keep the back straight hence more power, again that what works best for me & one must find which works best for them

i find having the heel rooted to the ground strikes are more powerful, this does not mean that one becomes slow or ridged or the lifting of the heal does not have its benifits.

For me when lifting the heal one can over reach and may sometimes lean forward, by keeping the heal rooted one tends to keep the back straight hence more power, again that what works best for me & one must find which works best for them

Kind regards,

Jason

Hi Jason

I am slightly surprised you say this and feel I need to clarify something.

Your comment "i find having the heel rooted to the ground strikes are more powerful" could be re-interpreted as "It feels more powerful" which can be a problem when trying to understand the effectiveness of one's own technique, this is especially true if you have got this impression when practicing "air technique". This is because without a resisting target (especially one that can complain ) the only frame of reference you have is to the ground and your own body. What it feels like to you does not necessarily translate to how it would feel to your opponent.

Improving the power in punching or striking is a basic biomechanical/ Physics challenge. To put it simply, Force is directly related to the body mass applied and the velcoity of the punch (in terms of the deceleration experienced) as it hits the target.

The reason the hip twist is important in a standing reverse punch is because your mass is stationary at the start and you need to move that mass in the direction of the punch. this is signifcantly more effective than just using your arm obviously. The double-hip (as discussed in other threads) increases the "arc" (or turning motion) and enables the puncher to increase the application of his/her mass in the direction of the punch and gives them a bit more time to accellerate the arm to a higher velocity.

Rasing the heel improves the punching power if it enables the hip to engage more effectively (especially true as we get older and tendons get stiffer in the leg). Raising the heel when you are already moving forward is less important as your body mass is already being applied in the direction of the punch. As you said there are advantages, depending on the context, with having your feet flat on the ground for purposes of stability, balance etc...

(Caveat: on this forum we tend to focus on self-protection and real fighting distance - those situations, unlike classical long-range dojo sparring, do not lend themselves to giving you an opportunity to perform the perfect punch. In many cases you will be grappling your opponent and needing all the traction on the ground at your disposal to able to apply other applictions than just the perfect knockout reverse punch...)

Apologies if I sound slightly lecturing about this but it is a real bugbear of mine.

As Thomas has stated, by raising your heel it helps put the body in a highly efficient way to structurally develop power into a power.

I think that people confuse the concept of what a "stance" is. The majority of "karate stances" have both feet flat on the ground so people automatically assume this is where the technique that is being used is working. This is not the case most of the time.

The stance is usually the end position of a move. For example take a stepping punch. In order to hit with full power the punch connects in mid move (and not at the end).

The second problem with stances is that it is just resemble a snapshot of the way in which the body is moving. (ie a front stance has the back leg straight and the front knee bent because without these two positions the bodyweight of the student would not be going 100% forward). However this is only a snapshot, When it comes to real live pratice you will flow from one stance to the next in order to take advantage of the opponents strengths and weaknesses.

The idea of slamming both feet into the ground to create "power", is generally a bad tactic to use, as it limits your movement, speed and as discussed above, power.

All this is not to say there are never times when to put both feet flat on the floor though :P

I've not got much to add to the excellent information above. My answer is: it depends.

As has been said already, biomechanically if the momentum is forwards, hitting with the back hand you will get more power with the hip twist if the heel is raised. I also shift that foot forward as well. If however I was hitting defensively and falling back then it's more likely that my heel would be down. If I was thrusting the rear hand out as an arm manipulation then my heel would be down. For me a lot of the confusion over heel up/heel down stems from taking Kata movements into kihon and kumite and then using them for a different purpose (most of the time).

Coming from a Shukokai background the double hip, impact and lifting the heal are well trained, however over time ive found keeping the heal rooted and my training partners have agreed i can hit and create more power on impact and bunaki drills etc.

As you quite rightly said what works for me may not work for someone else, apoligies if my post caused any confusion.

I think that the point of learning to keep your heel down is not with the expectation that you will always do it, but with the understanding that training things like Kihon and solo kata in this way teaches you to execute things using an entire chain of postural muscle that starts with the gastrocs and achilles tendon. You may not do this when moving dyanmically, but by focusing on this you learn to hold your entire posture a certain way and (if other parts of training are set up right) you will be able to transfer the advantages of that posture to more dynamic environments.

a) Using the muscles in your upper torso i.e. deltoid, pectoralis major and rectus abdominis to direct the momentum of rotation of your upper torso behind jab, cross cut, hook etc. To maximise the effect you must maximise the rotation of the upper torso and you gain more rotation through the hips if you lift your heel.

b) Second option is to use the large muscles of your lower body, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus and latissimus dorsi to impact effect. Imagine pushing a car but using the same mechanics to generate force for a punch. In this case your heel must be in the ground for effect.

There are advantages and disadvantages in both, why b for kihon? Well remember that karate is basically kenjutsu minus the sword....

b) Second option is to use the large muscles of your lower body, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus and latissimus dorsi to impact effect. Imagine pushing a car but using the same mechanics to generate force for a punch. In this case your heel must be in the ground for effect.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree with this. The movement of the muscles above do not require the heel to be on the ground and the push off force comes from the front of the foot not the heel. Biomechanically the heel does not play any role in the forward application of force and the moment you start to use the muscles to push forwards (or resist movement against you) the heel is redundant unless the rear foot is angled sideways, in which case you are not using an optimal alignment for maximum resistance. I often use the analogy of a sprinter's starting position or pushing a car when I explain foot position for the transfer of force. Keeping with your analogy of pushing a car, look at the use of the heel in these videos:

Creidiki wrote:

There are advantages and disadvantages in both, why b for kihon? Well remember that karate is basically kenjutsu minus the sword....

I'm not sure I follow your analogy - could you elaborate further? Karate has been strongly influenced by the ethos and structure (ranking) of Kenjutsu/Kendo but in terms of combative movements the cross-overs to me would seem to be few. My only experience of blade work was in Tamura Ryu Aikido where although the heel was often on the ground, due to the shortness of stance, the weight was always on the ball of the foot for proper biomechanics. If anything I would say that the emphasis on the heel being down stemmed more from the foot positioning of the shorter higher stances of Okinawan Karate being copied for the deeper stances of some styles of Japanese Karate without a proper understanding of the differences.

Interestingly our back foot in zenkutsu dachi is not out at 45 degrees, but almost straight,but the heel is down and our weight 'sites' into the back leg which gives structure forward- if that makes any sense........

Our front foot is slightly, ever so slightly lifted and this creats a kind of soft tension in the legs, it's good for mobility which in turn is good for application of speed in the desired direction.

We don't rotate our hips outside of when we step some hip movement happens.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree with this. The movement of the muscles above do not require the heel to be on the ground and the push off force comes from the front of the foot not the heel. Biomechanically the heel does not play any role in the forward application of force and the moment you start to use the muscles to push forwards (or resist movement against you) the heel is redundant unless the rear foot is angled sideways, in which case you are not using an optimal alignment for maximum resistance. I often use the analogy of a sprinter's starting position or pushing a car when I explain foot position for the transfer of force.

Depends on the angle of the movement, and of course the style practiced. Sprinter starts the leap with foot flat against base and finishes it with lifting the heel, extending ankle and pushing with the front of the foot. The Shotokan I practice teaches turning and stepping based on the heels and the muscles which are under stress are the back of the thigh and buttock. i.e. the largest muscles of the human body.

Then again there are styles which are more fluid and get their force from tai sabaki.

JWT wrote:

Creidiki wrote:

There are advantages and disadvantages in both, why b for kihon? Well remember that karate is basically kenjutsu minus the sword....

I'm not sure I follow your analogy - could you elaborate further? Karate has been strongly influenced by the ethos and structure (ranking) of Kenjutsu/Kendo but in terms of combative movements the cross-overs to me would seem to be few.

Should have marked that as "My personal pet theory" Ok here goes:

Karate was the unarmed combat form of the Okinawan warrior class as codified by Anko Azato. However the main form of fighting was kenjutsu (and kyudo) especially the Jigen Ryu which was introduced through the Satsuma occupation.

Jigen ryu is well known for its training methods, 8000 solid whacks with bamboo against wooden pole each day and according to its philosophy your first strike should cut through anything and everything because its the only strike you will ever need. One strike, one kill. Sound familiar?

To generate such speed an power you need a very solid base + a way to deal with the counter force. When you strike that pole with your bokken then the pole strikes your bokken back with equal force, Sir Isaac Newton is very adamant about this one. If you use your upper body and shoulders as shock absorbers there is very good chance of breaking something eventually there so instead you "ground" yourself and actually direct that force into the earth with kime.

All this requires very specifi biomechanics, which must be trained until instinctive. It makes sense to use those movements and biomechanics as unarmed fighting. So in hand techniques you have uchi which roughly coincide with the sword cuts, and tsugi which equal the stabbing techniques. Again, very style specific those styles that originate from Shuri Te and Azato tend to seem strong grounding.

Is the sprinter's foot really flat? Is the push off coming from the heel or the ball? I'm not a medical doctor but the human heel is not designed to push. It might look as if the push is coming from there, but in reality it is the ball that is the start point and the heel itself does not push (in correct facing alignment). I also do Shotokan, my orginal core art, in addition to DART, and I've seen a split between Shotokaners who follow what I believe to be a JKA tradition and turn predominantly on the heel, and Shotokaners who follow a different tradition and turn on the ball. The same muscles are used as part of movement in each. My personal opinion is that the heel is a stabiliser, not a driver of correct human movement.

Thanks for elaborating on your theory. As I understood it (from Nyumon) Azato was into more light whippy movements and it was Itosu who was into grounding and holding position. Do KenjutsuKa turn on their heel or their ball like Aikidoka in their cutting movements? I don't equate weight on the heel with grounding myself - if I'm taking a heavy force back then my heel might touch the ground as my legs bend, rather like the shock absorber in a car, but to continue the analogy it is the ball of my foot that is the wheel and it is there that I am grounded and from there I will apply force to move.

Is the sprinter's foot really flat? Is the push off coming from the heel or the ball?

In the start sprinters ankle is at about 90 degrees against the sprinters base, there is no support for the heel but the sprinter is essentially "jumping up from the floor" .

JWT wrote:

I'm not a medical doctor but the human heel is not designed to push. It might look as if the push is coming from there, but in reality it is the ball that is the start point and the heel itself does not push (in correct facing alignment).

Not trying to start an argument here, but neither the ball nor the heel push, there are no muscles there to push. If you do a standing long jump you start with your foot flat and begin your effort with the back of your thigh and buttocks and finish it with ankle.

If you generate angular momemtum like swinging a golf club the is beneficial to take the effort to the maximum and lift the heel. For linear push you need a solid base.

Not a kendoka but check out Jigen Ryu practice session here to see what I mean. Just to clarify, in my opinion both are great way to generate force to a punch and their preference seems to be style/dojo/teacher dependent.

In the start sprinters ankle is at about 90 degrees against the sprinters base, there is no support for the heel but the sprinter is essentially "jumping up from the floor" .

A Sprinter is jumping from the floor, but just as when you do calf raises - he is jumping from the ball of the foot, not the heel. You don't push off or jump from the heel - you use the muscles of the foot in coordination with those of the leg and buttocks to extend the foot to gain maximum force.

Creidiki wrote:

Not trying to start an argument here, but neither the ball nor the heel push, there are no muscles there to push. If you do a standing long jump you start with your foot flat and begin your effort with the back of your thigh and buttocks and finish it with ankle.

If you take a look at how you move and study some sport science texts you'll see this is incorrect. There are muscles in the foot which interact with and form part of the pathway of movement with the leg and buttock muscles (among others). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot Of course the muscles of the leg are the ones generating the force, but they work through the foot and proper extension of the ankle which essentially includes 'pushing' off the ball of the foot.

Creidiki wrote:

If you generate angular momemtum like swinging a golf club the is beneficial to take the effort to the maximum and lift the heel. For linear push you need a solid base.

Not a kendoka but check out Jigen Ryu practice session here to see what I mean. Just to clarify, in my opinion both are great way to generate force to a punch and their preference seems to be style/dojo/teacher dependent.

Thanks for the video. I agree that for a linear push you need a solid base, I just disagree about which part of the foot should provide that solid base in order to optimise the position of the muscle groups required.

Both methods work, but I think the raising of the heel works better in accordance with how the body is designed to function.

Stand with your legs straight and try to push off the ground without extending your foot. Now try it with straight legs but extending your foot. Now bend your legs to a squat and again push off without extending your foot, now do the same extending your foot.

Ok the body mechanics being discussed are beyond me, good job chaps please continue as im learning a lot.

As a 'historical' theory lets consider Sokon 'Bushi' Matsumura. (very much the first recognised ShuriTe Master we have 'some' comprehensiion of via lineage transmition.

He was from the RyuKyu Kingdom and period, and a proffesional bodyguard to 3 kings- a proper dude if you like.

He was a swordsman of note (granted hard proof is scarce, but go with me).

After the Meiji Restoration he is out of a job, a job that absolutly would have involved significant weapons knowledge and use, and a man of Peichin (ryukyu Samurai, again please go with me on this) class, in his job would have known and used swords (and most likley of Japanese origin).

But along with the political weapon restrictions, there is something else going on during that time- modernisation, weaponry and cultural values are changing.

My understanding, and indeed the teachings of our Ryu is that Matsumura heavily based his method of ShuriTe on Japanese swordsmanship, particulary the angles of entry and indeed the footwork and centreline theory's. Concepts of distancing and timing were also passed on etc.

But hitting, locking, grappling, throwing with empty hand are not swordsmanship, they have similair elements but they are specific to be effective, that is why karate is not Japanese Swordsmanship without the sword.

Unfortunatly Matsumrua did not pass on his actual swordsmanship art, he needed to earn a living teaching something acceptable I guess.

Thanks for the video. I agree that for a linear push you need a solid base, I just disagree about which part of the foot should provide that solid base in order to optimise the position of the muscle groups required.

Both methods work, but I think the raising of the heel works better in accordance with how the body is designed to function.

Ah-ha , there is a difference in how body is designed to function and how its applied in karate. Sprinter and car pusher can move their center of gravity out of the base of their feet, karateka is supposed to have the bodys center of gravity (hara) firmly on center of the supporting legs.

If you lift your heel in linear push, can you direct that force forward without leaning forward?

Only in Karate could there be a distinction between correct form and applied form.

Creidiki wrote:

Sprinter and car pusher can move their center of gravity out of the base of their feet, karateka is supposed to have the bodys center of gravity (hara) firmly on center of the supporting legs.

If you lift your heel in linear push, can you direct that force forward without leaning forward?

This made me think of a conversation Iain and I had a few months back while watching Dan Lewis teach a Sanchin based seminar. Dan was talking about letting the knee turn in to get more power into a strike rather than hold the leg rigid. Iain had also touched on this earlier with the use of the forearm strike in Tekki Shodan and letting the hips and the leg move in application to maximise power. I also let my front leg shift to bring the body's weight and muscles into better play to maximise power when striking rather than adhering to a 'locked leg' principle as I was taught in Shotokan.

Are Karateka supposed to have their weight firmly in the centre of the supporting legs? Sometimes - but very rarely, Kiba Dachin and Shiko Dachi for example, but Dachi are merely frozen snapshots of positions in a shifting continuum of weight transference and position that is real movement.

The answer to your question is probably not, but the answer to your question is also that I want to lean forward if I am striking. Leaning forward does not automatically mean over committing or putting yourself off balance, in fact it can make you more secure and stable. In hitting against thin air you can keep a vertical back and lose a little power and look good. Doing the same to hit a bag, pad or makiwara you lose a bit of power but it doesn't matter all that much. Doing the same against a person holding on to you and pushing, or charging in to you braced with an angled spine (as if tackling or pushing a car) and you will bounce off them with only minor impact as their alignment is more stable against conflicting momentum than yours. I do a demonstration on most of my courses of the difference between an upright hiza geri and an angled hiza geri when the target is charging in to you braced with a pad - in the first I get knocked back with minimal impact, in the second I can hold position (to the side) and strike.

Only in Karate could there be a distinction between correct form and applied form.

Any engineer worth his pocket protector knows the difference between theoretical model and practical application, but thats not what I meant. In my karate thinking, there is a difference between instinctive push and controlled push, for lack of a better description.

Thank god we are discussung martial art and not martial engineering. Then one of us could be proven wrong. Anyway, I'm having waayyyyy too much fun in this thread.

JWT wrote:

Are Karateka supposed to have their weight firmly in the centre of the supporting legs? Sometimes - but very rarely, Kiba Dachin and Shiko Dachi for example, butDachi are merely frozen snapshots of positions in a shifting continuum of weight transference and position that is real movement.

Yes, agree and in a simple step you move from zenzuku dachi through neko ashi dachi to again zenzuku dachi. While the distribution of the pressure changes through the step the center of gravity should be in the middle-ish.

For example isn't the whole point of judo to control your center of gravity while disrupting your oppinents? Yes, you can lean into punch to increase the reach without losing balance or control, boxers do it and like anything you do its a trade off. You trade stability for reach. Benefit of that trade off depend on the situation.

Heel down is a stronger structure on which an advancing opponent breaks. Heel down is for punching as a counter attack. The bulk of gyaku zuki punches in the kata are counter punches.

The raised heel lets you extend ffurther, better for chasing/attacking, but with greater reach comes greater risk of over-reaching. So even when attacking we learn heel down in most karate. Move the body to transfer weight and extend reach, but move in a balanced manner so that you can defend if needed even as you advance.

IMO power respective to these methods is a function of which one you train more or have an affinity to and should really be an insignificant difference if you are doing both correctly.